Yes, video of Obama belting out “I’m so in love with you” is fair use

BMG continues its censorship campaign with a second takedown notice.

The music publisher BMG Rights Management appears to have used the DMCA takedown process to remove another video of the commander-in-chief belting out "I'm so in love with you." The video, one of many uploaded in the wake of an event at the Apollo Theater earlier this year, was made by YouTube user sNewsCast. When Ars clicked the "play" button from our Philadelphia office, we got the message "This video contains content from BMG_Rights_Management, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

Two other videos of Obama's singing, uploaded by the Associated Press and ABC News respectively, have also become unavailable. They bear the message "the uploader has not made this video available in your country," making it unclear whether these videos were also removed on copyright grounds. Numerous other videos of Obama's rendition of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" remain available on YouTube.

Ars talked to Sherwin Siy, a copyright expert at the public interest group Public Knowledge, about the copyright issues raised by presidential renditions of copyrighted songs.

Siy argued that the original Romney ad was "definitely" fair use given that it was "commentary and criticism and political speech." He said those were "core values of free speech."

Siy argued that raw footage of the president singing is also fair use. "Anything the President of the United States does in public is newsworthy," Siy told us. Posting a video of Obama singing—or doing anything else at a public event—is protected as news reporting, he said.

"You don't want it to be the case that you can blank out sections of the public record because they contain copyrighted works," Siy said. "It leaves you with an incomplete picture." Fair use guarantees that the public has access to as much information as possible about the activities of their elected officials—even if those actions sometimes seem frivolous.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't give YouTube much latitude to stand up for fair use if it wants to hold onto the protection of the DMCA safe harbor. The notice-and-takedown procedure requires YouTube to leave an allegedly infringing work offline for at least 10 days, even if the uploader files a counter-notice stating that the work is not infringing.

We've emailed BMG seeking comment on its takedown spree but have not received a response.

Are you sure that Youtube is using the DMCA as the cause for the takedown?Youtube have worked out "arrangements" with at least one of the "big guys" so that they can ignore DMCA laws and regs, and issue whatever takedowns they desire.

Yeah, it's too bad Nixon chose to sing all the facts about Watergate and the aliens and JFK to the tune of the Beatles' Here Comes the Sun in that 18 and a half-minute gap in the tape. Now we'll never know what happened. But you know, you have to respect copyright above all else.

Are you sure that Youtube is using the DMCA as the cause for the takedown?Youtube have worked out "arrangements" with at least one of the "big guys" so that they can ignore DMCA laws and regs, and issue whatever takedowns they desire.

Actually it looks like BMG has now put the raw video of Obama singing into the Content ID system so almost every copy of it on YouTube is blocked--except of course for this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFyW5TQjypI where somebody mixed Obama singing with the original track and made a commercial FOR Obama. Politically motivated much?

And what's more, as Ars mentioned in an article it ran earlier this year and as I have extensively documented on my own website at http://fairusetube.org/youtube-copyfraud, because copyright claimants are the final arbiters of disputes against their own Content ID claims, once something is put into the Content ID system they can block it forever regardless of whether they have any legitimate copyright claim or not. Here the original video appears to have been blocked by a DMCA claim, but all subsequent ones are being blocked by Content ID, meaning there is no way to ever get them put back up unless BMG relents. The result is that YouTube has essentially given BMG unlimited powers to censor any video they want with no accountability or recourse. Way to go YouTube.

Because it's always a good idea to begin implementing your controversial take-downs on presidential/candidate videos in the middle of an election year where your bullshittery is most likely to come to light in mainstream media and in election speeches.

Except the people who filed the DMCA takedown was BMG, which is a music rights management group. You can pretty much expect of bunch of record companies to try and diminish fair use.

Now if you want to speculate that the Obama campaign someway somehow pressured or influenced BMG to file the takedown notice after all this time to coincide with the Romney campaign's new attack ad, then fair enough. They of course knew it would be fair use, but shutting down a new attack ad for the mandatory 10 days is pretty effective.

My understanding was that it's the *performance* of the song that would be copyrighted and able to be taken down by BMG via the DMCA. BMG owns the rights to reproduce Al Green's performance(s) of "Let's Stay Together" but not Obama's. The sheet music and lyrics would be copyrighted by the author, and probably licensed by ASCAP.

And if that's the case, wouldn't Obama himself own the copyright on his own performance, and wouldn't he have to license the tune and lyrics from ASCAP in order to perform it publicly?

Can the author explain why you are using a member of an lobbying organization as an authority on copy write issues? While Public Knowledge does tend to support issues that I agree with, using them in this context is poor journalism.

Except the people who filed the DMCA takedown was BMG, which is a music rights management group. You can pretty much expect of bunch of record companies to try and diminish fair use.

Now if you want to speculate that the Obama campaign someway somehow pressured or influenced BMG to file the takedown notice after all this time to coincide with the Romney campaign's new attack ad, then fair enough. They of course knew it would be fair use, but shutting down a new attack ad for the mandatory 10 days is pretty effective.

Are you intentionally dense? I made no mention of political affiliation. I don't think I've ever seen anyone sign up just to be stupid in public before.

Copyright is absolute. Not only did the person recording the YouTube video not have the right to do so, Obama should have secured permission from BMG before singing someone else's intellectual property, let alone remembering the lyrics without authorization. I hope Romney doesn't make these obvious mistakes in his campaign.</sarcasm>

Either our country is going to become a nation of insects, or Harrison Bergeron will come to fruition. Children: stay in school and pay attention -- lawyers stand to profit, and don't care about either outcome. It's the only career left to take.

"This video contains content from BMG_Rights_Management, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

But not, it seems, in the UK (insert conspiracy theory of your choice here)....

Amusing to see that Al Green was in the audience when he sang that - so if he had any problems with Obama publicly performing his song he'd have been able to do something about it, right? Oh, silly me, I forgot, this has nothing to do with the artists who actually create the material.

I assume they think they have rights to the original lyrics sung by Obama. In which case, one has to wonder why they haven't filed a lawsuit against Obama. Either that or someone at BMG (not necessarily anyone important, possibly just some flunky with access to the system) has decided to "support" Barry by getting YouTube to take down Romney ads.

Which makes me wonder: Why does Anonymous go through all the hacking trouble when they can disrupt the world just by spamming DMCA notices?

It isn't. BMG owns the copyright for the song in the video and, therefore, has the exclusive right (explicit exceptions and Fair Use notwithstanding) to control the reproduction and distribution of that work.

Quote:

Since Obama is singing the tune, it ought to fall under the fair use terms of a "Cover" performance, shouldn't it?

There is no such Fair Use allowance.

Quote:

In which case the copyright for the cover should fall to Obama and he'd have to be the one sending the DMCA takedown notice. (Which he obviously didn't)

My statements aren't really asinine, you're just upset by them for some reason. I made a correction based off my interpretation of your post. Then offered a theory ( a bit wacky) on why BMG all of a sudden filed a takedown.

jimCA wrote:

I assume they think they have rights to the original lyrics sung by Obama. In which case, one has to wonder why they haven't filed a lawsuit against Obama. Either that or someone at BMG (not necessarily anyone important, possibly just some flunky with access to the system) has decided to "support" Barry by getting YouTube to take down Romney ads.

A lot of BMG's actions don't make sense at this point. And that'd be one stupid flunky.

It isn't. BMG owns the copyright for the song in the video and, therefore, has the exclusive right (explicit exceptions and Fair Use notwithstanding) to control the reproduction and distribution of that work.

Quote:

Since Obama is singing the tune, it ought to fall under the fair use terms of a "Cover" performance, shouldn't it?

There is no such Fair Use allowance.

Quote:

In which case the copyright for the cover should fall to Obama and he'd have to be the one sending the DMCA takedown notice. (Which he obviously didn't)

That's not how copyright functions at all.

Are you sure? This was just in the news because Def Leppard is apparently re-recording their entire catalog for digital distribution.. they have no rights to their original recordings when it comes to CD/Cassette/LP distribution but fair use supposedly allows them to record "covers" and retain the rights to distribute those on iTunes, etc..

Or would that be the case that Def Leppard has the rights to the lyrics but their old record company has the rights to their original performances?

No, I'm making my stance clear. Don't like it, don't post. You didn't add a single thing to this thread.

I'm simply tired of the DMCA and am glad that politicians are now the butt of this sad legislation. I don't give a damn what party is assaulted.

Not sure why you're getting ganged up in this thread. Only thing I can think of is that you've made remarks in a related thread elsewhere that struck some raw nerves and are now getting flak over that in here. Or they are getting you confused with another poster.

No, I'm making my stance clear. Don't like it, don't post. You didn't add a single thing to this thread.

My adding (or not) anything to the thread is irrelevant. My point is that DemetriosAskiates didn't post anything that even remotely justified you jumping down his throat like that, particularly given that, after your initial attack, he was attempting to make amends with you. Why not take this opportunity to calm down and make the choice to not be totally unnecessarily combative?

No, I'm making my stance clear. Don't like it, don't post. You didn't add a single thing to this thread.

I'm simply tired of the DMCA and am glad that politicians are now the butt of this sad legislation. I don't give a damn what party is assaulted.

Not sure why you're getting ganged up in this thread. Only thing I can think of is that you've made remarks in a related thread elsewhere that struck some raw nerves and are now getting flak over that in here. Or they are getting you confused with another poster.

I'm as perplexed as you.

I haven't taken any kind of stance with regard to party.

I simply made a statement about the nonsense we have in the US regarding the DMCA and copyright in general. Yet, I'm getting slammed by people with clear agendas.

No, I'm making my stance clear. Don't like it, don't post. You didn't add a single thing to this thread.

My adding (or not) anything to the thread is irrelevant. My point is that DemetriosAskiates didn't post anything that even remotely justified you jumping down his throat like that, particularly given that, after your initial attack, he was attempting to make amends with you. Why not take this opportunity to calm down and make the choice to not be totally unnecessarily combative?

Your choice.

Sigh. Look above.

Not sure why you're getting ganged up in this thread. Only thing I can think of is that you've made remarks in a related thread elsewhere that struck some raw nerves and are now getting flak over that in here. Or they are getting you confused with another poster.

I simply made a statement about the nonsense we have in the US regarding the DMCA and copyright in general. Yet, I'm getting slammed by people with clear agendas.

I didn't read anything "political" from you anywhere here or in other threads in the past week so I think you just happen to pull the short straw (looking at the "relatively new accounts") and are just an unfortunate sounding board for other "motivated" posters here. God, the amount of new accounts with obvious political agendas mucking up the forums makes me want to puke.

Can the author explain why you are using a member of an lobbying organization as an authority on copy write issues? While Public Knowledge does tend to support issues that I agree with, using them in this context is poor journalism.

What are you looking for, then? There aren't too many places that a copyright expert can be employed that aren't involved in influencing copyright law in some way, be that as a lawyer, lobbyist, academic, in a think tank, etc. Should we only consult copyright experts that have taken jobs doing unrelated work?

The EFF does lobbying work as well and they're consulted on Ars all the time.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.